SAR insurance - a random thought

[mahony]

After additional review, Diving, could also be called technical swimming, similar to technical climbing, either rock & ice or mountaineering. (although general mountaineering & snowshoing & winter hiking kind of blend, depending on destination & altitude)

Technical climbing & diving require specialized gear bought at speciality shops. The AAI, similar to DAN is geared more towards climbers, especially alpinist. Who's an alipinist? (Am I every time I step above treeline? thinking no)

Do divers solo? Does a similar paper to the UL write about Diving rescues? (would love to see readers comments) probably do have something similar to "Accidents in Mountaineering"

In comparison though, I'd say swimming & hiking are closer together. Thankfully we don't have that level of supervision in the woods. (teens with whistles, you're too far into the woods, stay where I can see you, high winds, stay close to the trees, everybody out, there's a bear nearby. well Griz & some types of sharks may have similar variety in diets. lets forget any Hasselhof or Pam Anderson remarks )

Maybe AMC or ADK could group sell discounted AAI memberships as part of our AMC or ADK membership. The premium numbers would be larger, I was going to say the incidents cheaper than a ride from Denali or off the Matterhorn, but that may not eb true, just less technical in nature. Thankfully in the east we've had few (if any, knock knock), helicopter crashes. They do occur in hiker & skier rescues out west though.

You make some good points and my analogy is not perfect. I too would shudder at the thought of "teenagers with whistles" (e.g. sorry no 12 year olds above treeline, no bushwhacking so we can see you, no dogs allowed, no beer)

Diving accidents are chronicled in the scuba magazines and DAN publications, just like you see from the hiking societies. The residents of Gloucester and Rockport (MA) are familiar with diver incidents...just maybe not at the same scale you see in the UL.

Florida (esp. the Keys) have more awareness of diver issues and even though diving is a little more inaccessible than hiking, DAN (and their ins. policy)covers snorkeling and I have seen some very unprepared divers hopping into the surf.

The real point is that it is an available product that serves a very small market and covers evacuation from extremely remote locations (e.g. Galapogos Is., The Blue Holes (Gulf of Mexico) and Dive ships in the South Pacific). The hyperbaric chamber is just part of the cost.

Also to the point of "self selection": I agree that in many cases extra precautions leads to taking more risks (e.g. Antilock Brakes on cars were shown to decrease following distances - because drivers "could do it safely"). I would not expect this to occur in diving because one generally would not be likely to risk the bends just because the treatment was paid for (more analagous to jumping off a cliff just because an ambulance was standing by). So the diving and hiking analogy falls apart because I do believe that hikers would be more cavalier about their trips if they new that a phone call to SAR was "free" (i.e. a call to SAR does not require a life threatening emergency - as we have all seen posted here). I do think that a deductible would work though.

 

[Stash]

A story that could be related. The annual fire protection fee was not paid... The house burned. The annual SAR fee not paid... You're on your own??

http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/feeling-burned_2010-10-16.html

I can honestly see both sides. And where do you draw the line?

 

[David Metsky]

There are important distinctions in the house fire story. That fire department isn't responsible for the area where the fire occurred; they offered an extra service to people who lived outside of their town for an annual fee. They will fight fires if lives are in danger, but not just for structures if the owners have refused the fee (which this guy did even after having a fire that they fought for free previously).

 

[Stash]

There are important distinctions in the house fire story. That fire department isn't responsible for the area where the fire occurred; they offered an extra service to people who lived outside of their town for an annual fee. They will fight fires if lives are in danger, but not just for structures if the owners have refused the fee (which this guy did even after having a fire that they fought for free previously).

I agree that there's a difference with today's process. But if some sort of insurance program were to be put in place would there be a different thought process? Would that eliminate the availability of the "service" to those without coverage? Does the fact that in SAR lives are always at stake make that an impossibility? A hospital emergency room cannot refuse service, nor could SAR. So how could you then put this in place? It's an endless circle that can only be answered with the implementation of a requirement for personal responsibility. The most difficult of requirements in today's society.

 

[Mike P.]

I agree that there's a difference with today's process. But if some sort of insurance program were to be put in place would there be a different thought process? Would that eliminate the availability of the "service" to those without coverage? Does the fact that in SAR lives are always at stake make that an impossibility? A hospital emergency room cannot refuse service, nor could SAR. So how could you then put this in place? It's an endless circle that can only be answered with the implementation of a requirement for personal responsibility. The most difficult of requirements in today's society.

When does SAR become a body recovery though? Now SAR makes that distinction, if we had insurance would it be made by someoe at the company, the policy limit is gone & no sign of him. (That insulation that makes some of us slower, keeps up warmer on days like this....)

 

[Umsaskis]

Well, you all raised way more questions than I thought of when I started this thread. A few things that might be worth pointing out are:

Yes, I suppose the whole insurance thing would only work under the assumption that rescues had to be paid for privately, either by the individual or by the insurance company. So without arguing whether that is the right thing to do or not, it would be a necessary prerequisite for insurance to work.

It is important to note that this should not be a requirement, neither required insurance, nor required hiking permits, when we are talking about insurance. Permits and extra fees are another issue entirely. The question then becomes, as an optional thing, would enough people buy it to make it profitable enough for the inusrance company to actually be able to provide coverage?

I would think that any rescue would need to be treated the same way an ER visit is treated: as long as you have permission from the patient, you can attempt everything possible to save the person and worry about payment later.

Many interesting points. As far as bringing the idea to the powers that be is concerned....I'm always afraid of bringing up a stupid idea (maybe I just did), so someone else would have to do it....abdication of responsibility, etc.....

 

[Maddy]

Many interesting points. As far as bringing the idea to the powers that be is concerned....I'm always afraid of bringing up a stupid idea (maybe I just did), so someone else would have to do it....abdication of responsibility, etc.....

Not to worry. I'm sure they are at the top of their game. There are so many options. It's trying to determine which one might really work.